Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Indra Krishnan: Bankruptcy Order Appeal for Default on Debt Instalments
In Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Indra Krishnan, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an appeal against a High Court decision upholding a bankruptcy order. The appellant, Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin, had defaulted on an instalment agreement to pay debts owed to the respondent, Indra Krishnan, and other creditors, stemming from a defamation lawsuit. The court found that the appellant's failure to make timely payments entitled the respondent to terminate the agreement and pursue bankruptcy proceedings. The court held that the assistant registrar was correct to adjudge the appellant a bankrupt.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Insolvency
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against a bankruptcy order. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant unable to pay his debts after defaulting on an instalment agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Indra Krishnan | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Davinder Singh, Hri Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Davinder Singh | Drew & Napier |
| Hri Kumar | Drew & Napier |
4. Facts
- The respondent and others successfully sued the appellant for defamation and were awarded damages.
- The appellant failed to satisfy the debts due even after statutory demands were served.
- The respondent and other creditors filed bankruptcy petitions against the appellant.
- The appellant offered to pay the debts by instalments, and the creditors agreed subject to conditions.
- The agreement was recorded in a consent order.
- The appellant failed to make the third instalment payment on time.
- The respondent terminated the agreement and proceeded with the bankruptcy petition.
5. Formal Citations
- Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Indra Krishnan, CA 600011/2001, [2001] SGCA 52
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Statutory demands served on the appellant | |
| Bankruptcy petitions filed against the appellant | |
| Consent order recorded regarding payment by instalments | |
| Appellant to pay respondent $2,500 | |
| First instalment due | |
| Appellant requested an extension for the January 2001 instalment | |
| Respondent granted extension until 16 January 2001 | |
| Respondent terminated the agreement and restored the petition | |
| Appellant adjudged a bankrupt | |
| Appeal heard and dismissed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Bankruptcy Order
- Outcome: The court upheld the bankruptcy order, finding that the appellant was unable to pay his debts and that the respondent was entitled to proceed with the bankruptcy petition.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Default by debtor under arrangement
- Prior consent by debtor to bankruptcy order
- Inability to Pay Debts
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant was presumed to be unable to pay the debt following his non-compliance with the statutory demand, and the burden shifted to the appellant to rebut that presumption.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Burden of proof of inability to pay
- Presumption of inability to pay
- Extortion
- Outcome: The court held that the respondent's condition that the appellant consent to a bankruptcy order if he failed to pay any instalment on time was not extortionate, as it did not give the respondent any more than she was legally entitled to.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Bankruptcy Order
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
- Bankruptcy Petition
10. Practice Areas
- Bankruptcy
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyman v Hyman | N/A | Yes | [1929] AC 601 | N/A | Cited to argue that parties cannot contract out of what is provided by the law in relation to matters of status. |
| Kearley v Thomson | N/A | Yes | [1890] 24 QBD 742 | N/A | Cited to argue that parties cannot contract out of what is provided by the law in relation to matters of status. |
| Wilding v Sanderson | N/A | Yes | [1897] 2 Ch 534 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an order of court stands unless set aside. |
| Chia Sook Lan Maria v Bank of China | N/A | Yes | [1975-1977] SLR 9 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an order of court stands unless set aside. |
| Re Boey Hong Khim | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 38 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden on the creditor to show that the debtor was unable to pay the debt. |
| Re Majory, a Debtor | N/A | Yes | [1955] Ch 600 | N/A | Cited regarding the principle that the court will look strictly at the conduct of a creditor using or threatening bankruptcy proceedings oppressively. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Ed) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Ed) s 61(1) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Ed) s 62 | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Ed) s 64 | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Ed) s 65(1) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Ed) s 7 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bankruptcy order
- Consent order
- Statutory demand
- Instalment payment
- Inability to pay
- Extortion
15.2 Keywords
- Bankruptcy
- Insolvency
- Debt
- Instalment
- Consent Order
16. Subjects
- Bankruptcy
- Insolvency
17. Areas of Law
- Insolvency Law
- Bankruptcy Law
- Civil Procedure